Talk:Carol Smart

Inappropriate material and why
The entire review section was completely inappropriate, and at least three experienced editors (including me) have now removed it. I know it's hard for new Wikipedia editors to understand why it's inappropriate to publish your own commentary and original research here (no matter how well written). But, Samm smu/140.184.179.49, you really have to take this on board.

Wikipedia articles must be based solely on what has already been published about the article's subject (i.e. Carol Smart) and their work. And it must be in authoritative secondary sources. It's one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia and it's non-negotiable. You'll find more guidance about this at No original research and at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

The subject is pretty clearly notable, widely cited in scholarly journals and books, as well as the non-specialist press. See this in the Times Higher Education  and also these in the British and Australian press:, , , ,

This is what the Wikipedia article should be built on. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Excessively long bibliography
Can somebody with knowledge about Carol Smart's work please fix this? Shiningroad (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)